I keep seeing posts of some drama with typescript. What happened?

  • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    My who-the-fuck-cares-what-I-think-but-here-it-is-anyway take: Typescript is the only way I can write Javascript without feeling vomit in my throat.

    • glockenspiel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Same boat: people who hate typescript and therefore ensuring type safety probably also hate unit tests because they are too inconvenient to awesome rockstar developers.

      • 9point6@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        One hundred percent this. It reeks of the kind of ego you get from devs that think their code is so perfect it’s inherently easily maintainable.

        I know junior devs that don’t struggle with types and unit testing—any dev that thinks they’re too good for either is immediately sub-junior in my assessment, because they’re clearly unable to write code intended to be maintained by a team.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        10 months ago

        Lmao I’ve literally had conversations with people who have asked me to not be as rigorous with unit tests because you have to change some tests when you make a modification to the business logic.

        Bro: that’s the fucking point.

        • o_d [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          I know you’re joking, but this isn’t even true. The feedback loop that you get from pre-written tests in watch mode is pretty much instantaneous. This helps me to arrive at the correct solution much more quickly than trying to validate each case as I go.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I love unit tests but I hate the eternal struggle behind them.

        We should make unit tests so we can tell when the build runs that the app is going to be consistent

        Everyone cheers

        We lose a sprint setting up unit tests

        Oh this one test just went yellow, somebody spends a few hours figuring it out and finds that it’s a bug in the unit test. No no we’re good That’s just a bug in the unit test we’ll plan to fix that in the next Sprint.

        Oh look now this unit test is going red we’re blocked. 2 hours later they find out that it’s a real problem but it’s not so bad that it overrides current feature work. Well we’re going to need to override that and we’ll have to fix it in the next sprint.

        Unit test failures slowly degrade in priority to try to get feature work done. You end up with a backlog full of yellow and red known problems and no one pays any attention to you that tests anymore.

      • Dioxy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think it’s more of a JSDoc > TS thing. I need to check the drama, but I don’t believe anyone would want to write vanilla JS without some type declarations…

        • 9point6@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I don’t believe anyone would want to write vanilla JS without some type declarations…

          I really hate to burst your bubble, but that’s exactly what’s going on

    • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 months ago

      Honestly, it’s a shame that Typescript is used as “a way to make Javascript tolerable”. Its type system is actually very cool and allows for some very interesting expressions and guarantees that are difficult to achieve in most other languages

      We should just let the browser execute TypeScript so we can rid ourselves of the JS mess. That would also be the perfect time to do some cleanup of old, abandoned JS features.

      • ShittyKopper [they/them]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Honestly I’m surprised Microsoft isn’t pushing for that already. They already have a decently popular browser (Edge), they own TS, and they have a history with not giving a shit about standards (IE and ActiveX).

        • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Their browser and the V8 JavaScript engine is pretty much Chrome with some bits and pieces. I don’t think they’re ready to add a whole new scripting language just yet.

          I think the web peeps are working on adding TypeScript-style typing to Javascript, but only as annotations, so the types wouldn’t actually be checked.

  • De_Narm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    10 months ago

    Some rather big projects started to remove TS, which upset the community. One if not the biggest is Turbo, from the Ruby-on-Rails guy. He said: “[TS] pollutes the code with type gymnastics that add ever so little joy to my development experience, and quite frequently considerable grief. Things that should be easy become hard”. Now there is a bit of a battle whether or not TS is actually all that great.

    • yyyesss?@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      In my experience, that means they’re doing it wrong.

      I find that Typescript adds a lot of joy to my development experience. And I haven’t need any “gymnastics” since I invested in learning Typescript.

      • Veraxus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Same, but I come from a C++ background so strong typing is in my blood. This sounds like people who write bad code complaining because the language/transpiler won’t let them write bad code.

        • Bipta@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          That doesn’t seem a fair assessment at all. In strongly typed languages the types are part of the base syntax and usually not onerous, but rather straightforward to write. In TypeScript they’re tacked on in a way that makes quite a lot of work for developers while also making the code difficult to read and reason about (although good syntax highlighting certainly helps.)

      • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t do java- or typescript but that guy’s comment definitely translates as “I want to keep on writing messy code and you can’t force me to learn to clean my shit up”.

      • Cratermaker@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’ve heard it’s more of a problem on the library side. But I’ve personally had pains with ts when working with quirky features such as enums or discriminating unions. Part of the problem in my opinion is that the types all disappear at runtime, so you lose a lot of the joy of a statically typed language. For example, an API can pass you unexpected garbage and all your ts type wrangling helps not at all.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Well yes, if you don’t take care of properly typing external data, you won’t have it properly recognised. But that’s the same in any language that e.g. consumes external JSON data. Use the tools that Typescript gives you (like type guards) or the tools the community has built (like io-ts).

        • jpeps@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          For your API issue, have you tried using type guards or something more sophisticated like Zod?

      • lobut@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        10 months ago

        They just say the typing is too much and JSDoc is good enough for them as they get intellisense from it.

        Svelte, Turbo and a few others I think.

      • buzziebee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s more for library devs when writing their libraries. Using TS means you’re writing in one language and then distributing the compiled version for users.

        As users can use things in a lot of different ways you have to do a lot of type “gymnastics” to make your library API as useful as possible.

        That means spending a lot of time setting up types when a jsdoc and .d.ts file will do the same thing for library consumers.

        It’s really a non issue. If some library devs think they can ship code which is easier for them to maintain correctly, and end users have the same developer experience, then it’s totally cool.

        Of course people with no nuance are using this as an argument for why no one should write in typescript (because they don’t like it for some reason). This thread has a bunch of people doing this. That creates drama, but there really shouldn’t be any. TS is bae for me, but I totally get why library devs might want to not use it.

  • tunawasherepoo@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I’m not really involved in javascript land so im parroting off of what i’ve heard for “why js over ts?”

    • it reduces file size since you no longer need to ship source maps
    • ctrl+clicking stuff will take you to the definition rather than an unhelpful type declaration
    • if you spot a bug in the library, you can edit the source directly than having to recompile/reimport
    • ts adds some unnecessary type “gymnastics” (can’t speak for what this means), when all they really want is intellisense thru jsdoc

    So mainly: devs who don’t prefer strongly typed languages, and library devs who find typescript to be less transparent and more time consuming for new and old contributors than it’s worth

    • naught@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago
      1. Why do you have to ship a source map? It compiles to vanilla js
      2. Not sure what editor, but in neovim (which uses tsserver on my end for LSP) I can either jump to the type declaration or the actual implementation. This is a tooling problem not inherent to typescript
      3. This doesn’t make any sense. You’d have the same problem with minified js or css etc.
      4. It means they are forced to use types properly and do the tiniest bit of thinking and planning that results in fewer type errors (think undefined variables and properties, etc)

      Not a bad summary, but I take issue with all the points

      Edit: The sourcemap comment is relevant to package size and not to final bundle size per the HN comment linked below. Also, the cmd+click critique rings truer now that I know it’s in the context of an installed package. Another critique is build time which is fair enough.

      • NewDark@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I understand why some hobbyist individuals with small-ish scripts might not see the value, even though I even still disagree there.

        The more code and people touching the code, the more value you’ll see.

        • naught@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Hell I even write my tiny userscripts in TS and compile it to JS. The editor/“intellisense” support is nice

      • tunawasherepoo@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Thanks :) I didn’t see anyone mention the points made by the svelte guys https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35892250 which is a shame since I thought they made better points than the dramatic “type gymnastics” argument haha (i am biased toward type-safety, as long as there is idiomatic, algebraic data types w/ pattern matching)

        Overall it sounds like a major change with a few minor/moderate benefits, but it’s their choice and time will tell if it was worth it :P

  • sdw@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    10 months ago

    Where do y’all get your programming drama? I’m missing out

  • OscarRobin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    Basically some JS library devs have decided that JSDoc will work better for their specific use case as libraries than TS.

  • jamon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    As a person who has been writing JS for a very long time, and was building SPAs before the term existed…

    It all comes down to return on investment. The arguments I always hear in favor of TS are solutions to problems I’ve never had, at the expense of writing more code to do the same amount of work.

    It’s the same for people who tell me that they think everything should be tested then show me the tests they spent the last 40 hours working on, which I can quickly see are extremely brittle and unlikely to ever show any ROI. You will never be able to test every scenario, increasing the amount of things you test arbitrarily just increases the cost of building and maintaining your software. Each test you add should be something worth building and maintaining.

    Excess code that isn’t providing value is far more detrimental than not having a few extra tests or type safety.